tv [untitled] September 13, 2014 8:00am-8:31am PDT
have solar panels each if was a willing landlord in this location, i don't think that it is a sight or a macro sight would be vieible here and it does not appear to cover the same coverage area, if i could, please the chair. >> respond to the alternate, and i look at each and every one of them and the site and i am going to walk the neighborhood and what i didn't see were easy sites that they missed maybe it was a landlord who was cautious so that we could have a talk with them and say that this site is better skinned and more appropriate. and but the specific avalanche is higher, but as well as when they have been unable to get the sites in the neighborhood and especially the noevalley, and the sunset and it is
contributed in antennas, and these are on poles and sometimes two feet up, we have far less jurisdiction as a city to deny or relocate or redesign those. for every macro site, there is a wide range, for 7 to 15 of those sites and what we are seeing prior to this, we are bringing in the sites and it will still continue to do so and there is a balance and we don't allow the macro sites and not what they want, but they tend to pursue and we have less jurisdiction and it is not a either or but it is something to consider. >> and i definitely agree with you and i think that the only reason that i question talking about the alternative sites and i think that this neighborhood, along with the concern others that want to look at north beach and others, are just very difficult, and there is highly tense, and there are little opportunity, and very few tier one sites, where it is a public
building or a parking lot and few opportunity for that and i like watching net flix on my ipad as much as anybody else so i understand but because it is so difficult, that means, that there and we have to just balance the different objectives and the coverage area is only one of those objective and unfortunately there is not just one, and i just don't know that this site gets us there and there are alternatives that are also not perfect and we have the balance that we have look at as a commission and maybe we should look at the zoning and you know the commercial corridors and i think that is for the future. >> that is something that we are looking at and we will bring it forward at some point. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> you know, i have challenges with this too, but, i agree, that there have been 27 sites, looked at for this.
and the demand is increasing, and the usage is increasing, and i tried to do my part by having a dumb phone and not a smart phone and i am not going to use any emissions at all and i just take the calls and just, you know, return the messages, and i don't have my nose in it all day long like most people do with their iphones. but any way, i the decided minority and most people are using those things and you ride the muni and there is one of me reading the newspaper and one of them are looking at me reading one of those things and it is not going to get better and so i think that we are not going to find another site in that area, but it sounds like the commission is not voting for it, and you are going to add something. >> i just want to add that the sites like this and the favored sites and even the limited record sites and they do contact the employees for an application. and often times i will tell them to go and look at a location nearby with t-mobile and go back to the cable car
museum and for instance, the cable car was denied and canceled but i went back and spoke with both the applicants at the time and as well as police chief and the opportunities that were should be looked at. >> thank you i know that you have done a lot of work and i remember that one other challenge that we had a few months ago but there was an alternative site down the street which was approved. but it does not sound like you have that luxury here but you have the steep hills and you have building, and no buildings that are significantly taller than anything else. and i just don't think that there is an alternative that is going to be found. so i will not support the motion, although it may end up being disapproved any way. >> we had this discussion and more frequently in the last six or eight months, did the element of aesthetics and neighborhood appropriateness
come up? and it is not new to mr. hillis that we, this commission has asked you to work more collaborativively with us to avoid the aesthetic impacts and the red comes to the history being buildings, and the historic preservation, and it will help us to help the planning department, and so indeed, broaden the way that it can be supported with technology and also, minimize those impacts, which are lit. and so it is the, and i am not talking about the emissions etc., i am talking about the visual physical environment in which we live in, there are no rules at the moment and to hear us and this is not an out right no but i would like to see alternatives close by. or something else. and the street polls, and in this particular area, just like north beach. >> is still an area, where the utility iss not underground and that was an idea of the proven
design plan in the late 70s and early 80s it has happened in other neighborhoods and perhaps those polls and attachment of the polls are alternative i don't know, i am slowing this out, but cluttering unencombered roof scapes does not work for me at this moment. >> i do want to ask a question and formulating it in my mind. i want to ask at&t, you know you provide us the map of where there is a coverage gap. and everyone individual experience may be different but then we hear from the public or others, that they don't experience a coverage gap there. maybe if you could talk through how you make those determinations of where the gap is, and to explain where i am coming from a little bit. i agree that tier seven is clearly not preferable. but what alternative do we
have, that how do we pull together all of it that we determined, and there is even a need here. >> and certainly, so the commission, thank you. and teddy with at&t and as you recall, over a year. and the commission, sort of grappled with how improve and so the board of supervisors helped you with that and took that out of your hand and said hire an independent party to prove that you have a coverage and a capacity gap in the area. dwe that and it is in your packet that is how we proved whether or not there is a necessity, and whether or not there is a coverage gap, in the area. there is two reports and i make reference to them in the opening comments. >> and i don't blame you for sort of, and washing over those. but, it is kind of this standard, and we have the rf report and we have the coverage and the capacity report and the
independent third party analysis that theed abouter of supervisor and then the planning commission, voted to for the application process and we have that and we know, and in preference sefb, locations, it is always a little, it is always a little tougher, i remind the commission that you don't have the luxury, as long as we have the ability to show and we have shown that, and the exposure levels, and that piece of it, is not within a local jurisdiction authority to be able to deny on that. right. >> that is certainly is. but the preference seven situation, we take great concerns with which is why we can't to 27 different locations we don't have a willing landlord, we went through this with the commission not very long ago, where rec and park we have been trying to four years,
and very aggressively, to work with the parks to get into the parks in san francisco which is why we still have to roll out the temporary facilities for the lands and all of the marathons, because we don't have cell coverage and it becomes a public safety issue when we are doing the events like that. and so, we would love to be able to have a will be landlord but we don't have one for at least the intrusive, which is the standard, we will have a willing landlord and so the commission wants to deny your application because we believe that there is a more or least intrusive alternative within this area and it is incumbent upon the city to present that to at&t and we have spent a long time trying to find other locations in the area, 27 of which, did not work out for us, or were not lease ininstrumentive intrusive. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis?
>> i just want to buzz of the argument and it is hard to understand this from this and just again the impact on the retail space and i know that we, it seems like it is resolved, although, it still seems a little, unclear. you know there is an issue to it and the two retail spaces and we don't get the full, kind of ground floor and maybe there is a need for these spaces. they are just storage and, primarily, and pretty small building, with two, or you have to handle two retail spaces. >> and so i just wanted to have this, and the land use concerns, beyond also, and the aesthetic concerns. >> that is why we asked them to reduce the size and ship it over and request the dry clean and her her take would only be
6.5 feet. and so having it and looking and the folding tables and so, and we understand that there is going to be a impact to the business so long as long as the site does not increase over time. and thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards? >> i guess that i will be more convinced if you had someone who was an at&t customer say that i can't do my net flix, i am not getting any of that and there is nothing. i don't get the gap coverage and i don't know what that looks like either. nobody is telling me. there is no support. >> from a user? >> users? >> we are going to have a discussion, please come to the podium. >> okay. >> we need to find a user, we have this, and why don't we have anybody who is a customer for at&t saying that they need this. commissioner, we have several
ways that we at&t records dropped calls or dropped usage, and that information is proprietary and as part of that agreement, we turn it over to a third party. that information, was given to the third party to do that assessment of whether or not there was a clear coverage or capacity gap in the area. and it is not enough, to say that i have not dropped a call i have five bars, but it is the person who is working on a wireless lap top, who is with child and spouse and may be in another room doing other things that is taking up the band width. and so, we often times get people here. saying, well, i have five bars, and you must not have a problem on your network. >> we would not be celling a cell antenna if we didn't have a network problem.
>> okay. >> this is a question of statistics, how do you know how many in this year use verizon? there will be sooner or later, there will be dropage as well and they will add additional nine antenna and how do you know? (inaudible). >> i don't have a lot of competitor data, that the next one comes in a location preference too. >> and so we come in as a preference seven. >> they come in as a co-location too. and any other carrier comes in as a preference too and which is what we did on 1800 union, it would have been seven because there was already a cell antenna, it comes in as a two, and so you know, that
there is, and i don't have competitor information and i can only tell you what our network tell us, and the need and the coverage and the capacity gap that we have on the network. >> it is fair to say that you were also, and this is understandable, building for the anticipation of the additional. >> yeah. >> if you are looking ahead. that is a way to plan and you are not reacting to, what is not and you are preparing for the future. >> that is correct, and this is a 6 panel antenna site and we typically build, 9-12, and this is a very small and we have kept it small and we have been required to keep it small, based on the area to try to help it fit in with the neighborhood. we don't, notice, this is not one of the larger installations that we would like to have.
mobile is changing our lives and that is the demand that we have on the network right now. >> thank you. >> we are seeing others in the area and for instance, one door down, and eight on the poll away from the corner of this building and so we are seeing it, not just at&t, and they can be the most active here at the planning commission. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. just real quick and not to belabor this point, and i can't speak for the other commissioners and i can say for myself, in terms of my comments as to why i am sort of taking issue with. and taking up the rear yard and this is not that we are picking on this site and i want to say that i am not going to cause a coverage gap, right? and it is not just someone dropped a call, it is maybe your internet is going a little
bit slower and something has come through for some people and not for others. i can say that my comments, they are not related to any sort of the technical expertise, and what constitutes a gap and what does not. >> we have had the sites that are ready to go to the hearing and hamond said not the coverage gap and so in addition, the site, at balboa, and on the boulevard and came here and it was actually preference five. and we have approved, preference seven and such as 2001, sacramento and near the lafayeit. te park, and we have approved and the only difference in this case is significant, and the community opposition and they are not resigned and the one to 1760 stockton that was approved and that only had three antennas and it would not
support it for the visibility from the different streets and perspectives and it had it here and chosen, and nine to 60 and it would not have come before you, we would not recommend the support of it a site like that, because it is not appropriately. and like the three antennas that we see and even for sprit, those are modified to add the additional three antennas and below the median that we are seeing. >> and i am sorry, just to finish up, and just i have to say this, that i do think that the review of this site and to me i was not to impact much, by the community opposition because there are other tier seven sites and just because you don't see the people come out and it does not mean that is a good design and i can speak from the personal experience and so i am not sure that this one, really works. but thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini?
>> yeah. and i acknowledge that you do see the stacks in it, but i think that given the situation, and and that was not there when the building was built and neither is, and it is either a heating or a cooling unit and i am not sure that it is on the side of the building that goes up to the roof and that was not tl. >> those are conventions and repressures and we had them added to the plan saying that they will be sklaoened, this is a neighborhood and let's try to respect the use if we can. so for instance, the cable trays are proposed running down the interior light wall and over the windows. and but i move then and i want to minimize those to the extent
that we can. is that part of the installation, and >> the boxes that you see on the plan. >> not the boxes you just go down the windows and i guess that it would be you see the element that comes down and next to the window to me it looks to be a heating or a cooling. >> that is the vent for the restaurant. >> sorry a vent. >> correct. >> they to move over that vent and clean up the building and they are successful in doing so and others times not as much. >> it was something that was added after the building. >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> call the question. >> commissioners there is a motion of intent to disapprove, if you could also, get a date for continuance, for this to come back. and october second, would be the next date.
>> and so, on that motion, of intent to disaapprove and to continue this matter to october second, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> commissioner fong. >> no. >> and commissioner and president wu. >> no. so moved that motion passes four to three, with commissioners antonini, fong and wu voting against. >> that will place you on item 2014.0846 c, 444, presidio avenue, request for the conditional use authorization. >> thank you. the request for you is a request for a conditional use, at 444 presidio avenue and it is located on the north east
corner of california and presidio satisfy, ats a hotel, and considered a location by it for the facilities for the clear water and for sprint. and the proposal will feature 12 antennas and on the roof top of the building as well as equipment area in the garage. >> and the intent will be representing the pipes. >> while not required, the applicant, did submit it and the other viable sites, and including the publicly structures. and the staff received, 27 letters, and additional in 97 signatures against the project and with the concerns over the health effects of the radio frequency and emissions. >> the staff has determined, that the project is necessary for that and it recommends approval. thank you. >> project sponsor?
>> good afternoon, commissioners, teddy, with the at&t external affairs, we are seeking the approval today on a conditional use permit, for a wireless facility at 444 presidio, approval of it will permit them to place up to 12 roof top antennas at the subject property. the majority of the equipment, in the facility will be located outside of the public view in the basement of the said property. >> and it lies upon the western and the southern border of the neighborhood where there are predominantly in this area, three story residential and mixed use buildings, and it is where kaeft, street and the precidio and california, interact, and the campus come together. >> and aside with the reference to and the opposed location under the city's
telecommunication guideline, and at&t conducted a thorough analysis and including 17 properties in that analysis, those are included in your packet. >> we asked for your support as we work to upgrade our network here in san francisco and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> opening for public comment? >> thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns, i am (inaudible) i am representing
are not... to neighborhood, this the... (inaudible) people's life (inaudible) wave right now, and this scientists find out there and dangerous to the people and that is why we are opposed to this project. and this has been (inaudible) so they, and they recommendation, and just with the hour, and opposition, and also, with the reach was made by (inaudible) scientist. and famous scientist and very famous university. and i will like and i
(inaudible) this is the danger to the people and we are asking you to support us, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> is there additional public comment? >> this is your opportunity to comment, and the committee will not be responding to questions but you can certainly ask them. >> he just wanted to know, that this is a hotel, and i look at it and they are going to do, 12 of these antenna. and you see it, and they are...
and (inaudible) and we have a meeting of the local library. and a lot of people came and asked a lot of questions. and i keep hearing this, word emissions, and for our health, and i find that very uncomfortable, and lots of children on the street and we have a lot of population giving the children every day and those who have a lot of elderly people that we did not have before and we are surviving longer than we expect. and i am very concerned about what was, and what is the so, roof mounted chimney mean,? what is that going to do to the view my tenants have from my building? and this%backer what is this emissions that i hear and i heard the word radiation, and the number of times today. and so it was more and more concerned, and why did they...
in the hotel, request this wireless service, is it just for their guests or is anyone in the neighborhood going to benefit? ten foot high on the top of a relatively small otell. and it is also, >> on the other hoi tells in the city that have been pinpointed like this and is it at&t, or is it the hotel that approaches them? and i certainly would not request anything like this on my apartment building. which is, less than 300 yards of this hotel. >> and i am speaking on behalf of high tenants and they are in the next neighborhood and we have a lot of small businesses and it just does not fit. and whatever it is going to i
am late health wise, and i think that problem i my questions that i would like concerned, but i would like to know that they are going to be answered honestly, and for the correct information and thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, is there any additional community public comment? >> seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> okay. >> on this one, and for the benefit of the public, we have standards of the missions, that if they are below a federally set level, that we cannot use those to disapprove a project. so, if the public is not happy with the levels that are set by the federal g, you should call your federal representatives to ask for that to be changed. but, absent, anything at that level, we are not allowed to disapprove, a project as long as it is below the levels that
are deemed to be safe. >> and on the other issue of the aesthetics in this case, i don't think that this is the best looking building around. in nigh opinion, and i don't know that the chimney faux chimney stems are that much of a distraction from the building and so i am okay with the project. and i would move to approve. >> second. >> there was a motion, commissioner to approve with conditions on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> that motions passes 6-0 and places you on 12 a,